In a neighborhood discussion, one man suggested that while he didn’t like a certain high-profile politician at all, and thinks of him as a very poor leader, he had to admit that that man does exhibit considerable fortitude. A neighbor man took offense. He groaned that nobody should call that man virtuous, even with fortitude. It was disgusting to him to think that that man had such a respectable virtue.
Plato and Isaiah, as well as U.S. founding fathers like James Madison, would likely see a dearth of fortitude in today’s U.S. Politics. They all touted the need for virtue in top leaders in their own ways, and fortitude was an obvious example. Derived from Latin, (fors, fortis, strength, or strong), fortitude has long been seen as essential in top leaders. Who wants a wimpy person in charge?
Plato saw fortitude mostly as courage. Isaiah, describing the Hebrew Messiah when he would come (It would definitely be a man they assumed!) conceived fortitude as “mighty”. Fortitude is now best seen as both combined, courage along with strength – personal authority, verve of personality, and power among people.
In the debate about a certain politician’s fortitude, what can be useful is the old saying, “in medio stat virtus”, or “virtue stands in the middle”. That perspective sees most virtues as existing on a continuum between two opposite excesses, too much or too little. Regarding fortitude, that would put it between extremes of cowardice on one end and abuse of power on the other. One could then place individuals on a continuum something like this. (The following can soon be seen in graphic form on www.spiritualclinician.com .)
A person with less optimal fortitude in a given situation would appropriately be described as timid, apprehensive, inhibited, and appeasing. Those with even less fortitude would hazard being seen as apathetic, cowardly, and with a tendency to hide, physically and/or personally.
On the other side, too much courage (foolhardiness) could be seen as pushy, egoistic, and obnoxious. With even less fortitude we could describe them as coercive, dominating, abusive, and bullying.
We could still describe the person with fortitude as a virtue as assertive, creative, persistent, and strong.
Fortitude carries a nuance of openness too, as opposed to mere stubbornness. The markedly stubborn person has lost any curiosity, only remaining stuck in past perceptions and established preferences pushed by blind repetition into prejudice. Fortitude faces always-changing reality with thoughtful consideration and careful choosing, while stubbornness merely hangs on to previously established decisions now justified by repetition, as in “We’ve always done it that way.”
In his depiction of men’s psychological makeup, neo-Jungian Robert Moore chose four distinct archetypes in us men – king, warrior, magician, and lover. They represent four aspects of male psychology: top leader, imaginative lover, fierce warrior, and inscrutable magician.all of them exhibit fortitude, of various kinds — stalwart warrior, powerful administrator,persistent humorist, and faithful lover. But he was clear that communities and states don’t do well long-term with warrior leaders. They all need strong top leaders who brim with a unique brand of fortitude invested in the common good of their people.
Fortitude is the virtue of heroes, martyrs, foreign journalists, and revolutionaries. In its “defiance” form, fortitude is portrayed by Mel Gibson in Bravehart as he dies, executed with his entrails torn out, still screaming with all of his might in his last breath, “FREEDOM”.
In politics fortitude is a kind of angry solidity that will fight ferociously and interpersonally for what a leader deeply cares about or loves. It is backed by considerable emotion that motivates tenacity, overcomes the inertia of fearfulness or laziness, and finds the verve to withstand opposition and drudgery. National leaders possess a sad dearth of fortitude when they cave in to peer pressure, legal threats, party coercion, lobbyist selling, and media twisting. If they only watch silently when their duty is to confront, challenge, and even impeach an errant leader, they are likely to be remembered as cowards, if at all, by historians, and have their legacy completely ignored.
Top leaders need fortitude to stand against foreign leaders’ myriad efforts to disrupt our governments’ progress, some party leaders who misunderstand their own best role for the country, journalists who look for the greatest conflict in any issue and exaggerate it, and even neighbors and acquaintances who cannot “get” their reasons for standing where they are.
How can voters assess the fortitude of national political candidates as a component of the character necessary for leading a country? Here are some pointed questions and spoken observations that may challenge them to cultivate more fortitude in their role.
“Have you ever been in a fistfight, or semi-public shouting match?” “What was so important then?” “Was there any satisfaction, learning, or personal confirmation after the melee?”
“Will you talk with us about a time when you needed to be interpersonally forceful, persistent, and yet vulnerable in service of your work for a major cause, or for the good of the city, state, or the country itself?” “What did you do to protect basic values of humanity in that conflict?”
A key slant here is the obligation of a public figure to confront errant peers when necessary. In the future small assessment group, some initial questions might be, “What are some of the lines that would need to be crossed by a peer national leader for you to consider solidly admonishing that person in private?”
“What will have transpired in your attempts to confront the behavior of that errant person individually, directly, face to face, before thinking about impeachment?”
“What would it take specifically for you to vote to impeach and remove from office, a member of Congress or a president of the United States, refusing to sit in silence while that decision is made by your peer senators?”
Gordon J Hilsman is a retired clinical educator in the Pacific Northwest and author of Assessing the CHARACTER of Candidates for National Political Office: In Search of a Collaborative Spirit. He can be reached at ghilsman@gmail.com, or soon at www.GORDONJHILSMAN.com and www.Spiritualclinician.com.
